Lune

ICLR2025Top-tier venue

Polyrating: A Cost-Effective and Bias-Aware Rating System for LLM Evaluation

Jasper Dekoninck, Maximilian Baader, Martin T. Vechev

Abstract

Rating-based human evaluation has become an essential tool to accurately evaluate the impressive performance of large language models (LLMs). However, current rating systems suffer from several important limitations: first, they fail to account for biases that significantly influence evaluation results, second, they require large and expensive preference datasets to obtain accurate ratings, and third, they do not facilitate meaningful comparisons of model ratings across different tasks. To address these issues, we introduce POLYRATING, an expressive and flexible rating system based on maximum a posteriori estimation that enables a more nuanced and thorough analysis of model performance at lower costs. POLYRAT-ING can detect and quantify biases affecting human preferences, ensuring fairer model comparisons. Further, POLYRATING can reduce the cost of human evaluations by up to 41% for new models and up to 77% for new tasks by leveraging existing benchmark scores. Lastly, POLYRATING enables direct comparisons of ratings across different tasks, providing a comprehensive understanding of an LLMs' strengths, weaknesses, and relative performance across different applications. 1 1 Code is available at https://github.com/eth-sri/polyrating .

Ask Lune

Ask anything. The answer quotes the paper.

Lune reads all of it and the papers around it, then shows you the passages behind every answer.

Questions to start from

Lune answers from

the full paper · 3 top-tier papers that cite it · related work

Get the answer

Free to start. No credit card required.

Cited by top-tier papers3

  1. The Open Proof Corpus: A Large-Scale Study of LLM-Generated Mathematical ProofsJasper Dekoninck, Ivo Petrov, Kristian Minchev, Miroslav Marinov et al.ICLR 2026 · 28 citations
  2. Bias Similarity Measurement: A Black-Box Audit of Fairness Across LLMsHyejun Jeong, Shiqing Ma, Amir HoumansadrICLR 2026 · 1 citation
  3. Beyond Ranking: Fine-Grained Diagnostics and Self-Improvement for MLLMsMingze Xu, Zijing Zhao, Qiming Peng, Houwen Peng et al.ACL 2026

Builds on7

  1. Measuring Massive Multitask Language UnderstandingDan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Steven Basart, Andy Zou et al.ICLR 2021 · 7,905 citations
  2. Chatbot Arena: An Open Platform for Evaluating LLMs by Human PreferenceWei-Lin Chiang, Lianmin Zheng, Ying Sheng, Anastasios Nikolas Angelopoulos et al.ICML 2024 · 1,212 citations
  3. Human Feedback is not Gold StandardTom Hosking, Phil Blunsom, Max BartoloICLR 2024 · 96 citations
  4. MixEval: Deriving Wisdom of the Crowd from LLM Benchmark MixturesJinjie Ni, Fuzhao Xue, Xiang Yue, Yuntian Deng et al.NeurIPS 2024 · 88 citations
  5. Large Language Models are not Fair EvaluatorsPeiyi Wang, Lei Li, Liang Chen, Zefan Cai et al.ACL 2024

Related papers

  1. Co-Eval: Augmenting LLM-based Evaluation with Machine MetricsLing-I Wu, Weijie Wu, Minyu Chen, Jianxin Xue et al.EMNLP 2025
  2. Re-evaluating Open-ended Evaluation of Large Language ModelsSiqi Liu, Ian Gemp, Luke Marris, Georgios Piliouras et al.ICLR 2025
  3. Rating Roulette: Self-Inconsistency in LLM-As-A-Judge FrameworksRajarshi Haldar, Julia HockenmaierEMNLP Findings 2025 · 11 citations
  4. Limits to scalable evaluation at the frontier: LLM as judge won't beat twice the dataFlorian E. Dorner, Vivian Yvonne Nastl, Moritz HardtICLR 2025
  5. Contrastive Decoding Mitigates Score Range Bias in LLM-as-a-JudgeYoshinari FujinumaACL Findings 2026
Dusk over the sea between two cliffs drawn in fine vertical lines